What is death ?

[wlminex]

We can all pull a multitude of "perhaps" out of thin air. Yawn...

BTW - I sure get tired of theists telling me what the atheistic view is. Why bother? Because living in an air conditioned house beats the hell out of living in a mud hut. Duh!

. . . . And your point IS? . . . . . Perhaps there was/is a Big Bang . . . perhaps not . . . .those 'haps' are certainly frustrating, I'm sure!

[wynn]

But does Eastern (and elsewhere) thought still dabble much in the fading Western penchant for substances by themselves / in themselves (whether classical material atoms or immaterial monads, etc)?

Dabble, eh?

It seems to me that Westerners (" ") tend to come to Eastern (" ") thought with expectations of a particular kind of ontology (much like in terms of classical material atomism or immaterial monadism), and then read those Eastern thoughts based on those expectations, assuming the Easterners read with those same expectations as well.
But I don't think the Easterners do so.

A Westerner would typically ask "What is it that gets reborn?" while I think an Easterner wouldn't ask that. At this point, I unfortunately find it difficult to explain in short why this is so.

[gmilam]

. . . . And your point IS? . . . . .

That I get tired of hearing people tell me what my point of view is. Just because you need an imaginary friend to make life worthwhile doesn't mean everyone does.

[C C]

It seems to me that Westerners (" ") tend to come to Eastern (" ") thought with expectations of a particular kind of ontology (much like in terms of classical material atomism or immaterial monadism), and then read those Eastern thoughts based on those expectations, assuming the Easterners read with those same expectations as well. But I don't think the Easterners do so. A Westerner would typically ask "What is it that gets reborn?" while I think an Easterner wouldn't ask that. At this point, I unfortunately find it difficult to explain in short why this is so.

Nancey Murphy offers a restorative view that even early Christians (or the biblical authors) had similar apathy about such matters, before the introduction of Greek influences altered that. Since there was no metaphysical preference originally, she perceives this as salvaging Christianity (for today) by allowing embodied mind to be compatible with the religion.

Lynne Rudder Baker: Murphy argues that the fact that the Bible seems to teach dualism is largely a result of poor translations. Once the translations are repaired, "it is hard to find any clear teaching on the metaphysical make-up of the person" in the Bible at all. The Biblical authors were "interested in the various dimensions of human life, in relationships, not in the philosophical question of how many parts are essential components of a human being." Thus, the door is open to physicalism. ["The words that later Christians have translated with Greek philosophical terms and then understood as referring to parts of the self originally were used to designate aspects of human life. For example, spirit refers not to an immaterial something but to our capacity to be in relationship with God, to be moved by God’s Spirit." --from Nature’s God: An Interview with Nancey Murphy]

[...] Chapter Three is a defense of nonreductive physicalism. In particular, Murphy aims to show how nonreductive physicalism allows us to have free will and moral responsibility. Her strategy has two prongs. First, she argues against reductionism and for downward causation. Second, she argues that human beings are "highly self-directed organisms whose behavior exerts downward causal control over their neural systems," and that they can come to "govern their own behavior on the basis of moral reasons."

[...] The cognitive neurosciences give reason to think that all the human capacities attributed to the soul can be understood as "processes involving the brain, the rest of the nervous system and other bodily systems, all interacting with the socio-cultural world." Interestingly, a number of views of Thomas Aquinas (e.g., his recognition of vis aestimativa, or an estimative power) find echoes in neuroscience (e.g., the discovery of the role of the amygdala in responding to intentions of others).

[...] Murphy suggests that God acts in the world at the quantum level, where there is no conflict with natural causation. Indeed, Murphy says, "It is possible from a theistic perspective to interpret current physics as saying that the natural world is intrinsically incomplete and open to divine action at its most basic level."

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/25082-bodies...irited-bodies/


CLOSER TO THE TRUTH: "Can We Believe in Both Science and Religion?" episode

NANCEY MURPHY: We’re just bodies.

ROBERT KUHN: There is no non-physical element required to make us human beings...

NANCEY MURPHY: We’re just bodies. That’s right.

[...] ROBERT KUHN: But you certainly believe that people who have died, as Christians at this point are dead, they’re unconscious, they’re non-conscious, they don't exist until they may or may not be resurrected in the future.

NANCEY MURPHY: Right, there is no part of us that continues to exist after death.

ROBERT KUHN: And that God would have to resurrect the body and recreate your thought patterns.

NANCEY MURPHY: Basically, yes, re-create us in a different form, a whole different world, because otherwise we would be equally subject to corruption and decay as we are in this life.

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/closertotrut.../learn_02.html

transcript: http://www.pbs.org/kcet/closertotrut...cereligion.pdf

[wynn]

NANCEY MURPHY: We’re just bodies. That’s right.

Identifying with that which is impermanent brings suffering.
The body is impermanent, subject to birth, aging, illness and death. Identifying with that which is subject to birth, aging, illness and death, brings suffering.

Why does Ms. Murphy opt for that, how does she justify such identification?



For comparison, a discourse from the Pali Canon:


A man, here referred to as Aggivesana, Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son, went to challenge the Buddha:


/.../
As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "I would like to question Master Gotama on a certain point, if Master Gotama would grant me the favor of an answer to the question."

"Ask, Aggivessana, as you see fit."

"How does Master Gotama discipline his disciples? Or what part of his instruction is generally presented to his disciples?"

"Aggivessana, I discipline my disciples in this way; this part of my instruction is generally presented to my disciples: 'Form is inconstant. Feeling is inconstant. Perception is inconstant. Fabrications are inconstant. Consciousness is inconstant. Form is not-self. Feeling is not-self. Perception is not-self. Fabrications are not-self. Consciousness is not-self. All fabrications are inconstant. All phenomena are not-self.' This, Aggivessana, is the way in which I discipline my disciples; this part of my instruction is generally presented to my disciples."

"A simile occurs to me, Master Gotama."

"Let it occur to you, Aggivessana."

"Just as any seeds that exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation, all do so in dependence on the earth; or just as any activities requiring strength that are done, all are done in dependence on the earth; in the same way, Master Gotama, an individual with form as self, taking a stance on form, produces merit or demerit. An individual with feeling as self... with perception as self... with fabrications as self... with consciousness as self, taking a stance on consciousness, produces merit or demerit."

"Then, Aggivessana, are you saying, 'Form is my self, feeling is my self, perception is my self, fabrications are my self, consciousness is my self'?"

"Yes, Master Gotama, I'm saying that 'Form is my self, feeling is my self, perception is my self, fabrications are my self, consciousness is my self.' As does this great multitude." [4]

"What does this great multitude have to do with you? Please focus just on your own assertion."

"Yes, Master Gotama, I'm saying that 'Form is my self, feeling is my self, perception is my self, fabrications are my self, consciousness is my self.'"

"Very well then, Aggivessana, I will cross-question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think? Would a consecrated, noble-warrior king — such as King Pasenadi of Kosala or King Ajātasattu Vedehiputta of Magadha — wield the power in his own domain to execute those who deserve execution, to fine those who deserve to be fined, and to banish those who deserve to be banished?"

"Yes, Master Gotama, he would wield the power in his own domain to execute those who deserve execution, to fine those who deserve to be fined, and to banish those who deserve to be banished. Even these oligarchic groups, such as the Vajjians & Mallans, wield the power in their own domains to execute those who deserve execution, to fine those who deserve to be fined, and to banish those who deserve to be banished, [5] to say nothing of a consecrated, noble-warrior king such as King Pasenadi of Kosala, or King Ajātasattu Vedehiputta of Magadha. He would wield it, and he would deserve to wield it."

"What do you think, Aggivessana? When you say, 'Form is my self,' do you wield power over that form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'?"

When this was said, Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son was silent.

A second time, the Blessed One said to Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son: "What do you think, Aggivessana? When you say, 'Form is my self,' do you wield power over that form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'?"

When this was said, Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son was silent a second time.

Then the Blessed One said to him, "Answer now, Aggivessana. This is not the time to be silent. When anyone doesn't answer when asked a legitimate question by the Tathāgata up to three times, his head splits into seven pieces right here."

Now on that occasion the spirit (yakkha) Vajirapāṇin [Thunderbolt-in-Hand], carrying an iron thunderbolt, was poised in the air above Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son, (thinking,) "If Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son doesn't answer when asked a legitimate question by the Blessed One up to three times, I will split his head into seven pieces right here."

The Blessed One saw the spirit Vajirapāṇin, as did Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son. So Saccaka — afraid, terrified, his hair standing on end — seeking shelter in the Blessed One, seeking a cave/asylum in the Blessed One, seeking refuge in the Blessed One — said to the Blessed One, "Let Master Gotama ask me. I will answer."

"What do you think, Aggivessana? When you say, 'Form is my self,' do you wield power over that form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'?"

"No, Master Gotama."

"Pay attention, Aggivessana, and answer (only) after having paid attention! What you said after isn't consistent with what you said before, nor is what you said before consistent with what you said after.

"What do you think, Aggivessana? When you say, 'Feeling is my self... Perception is my self... Fabrications are my self... Consciousness is my self,' do you wield power over that consciousness: 'May my consciousness be thus, may my consciousness not be thus'?"

"No, Master Gotama."

"Pay attention, Aggivessana, and answer (only) after having paid attention! What you said after isn't consistent with what you said before, nor is what you said before consistent with what you said after.

"What do you think, Aggivessana? Is form constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, Master Gotama."

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

"Stressful, Master Gotama."

"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, Master Gotama."

"...Is feeling constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, Master Gotama."...

"...Is perception constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, Master Gotama."...

"...Are fabrications constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, Master Gotama."...

"What do you think, Aggivessana? Is consciousness constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, Master Gotama."

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

"Stressful, Master Gotama."

"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, Master Gotama."

"What do you think, Aggivessana? When one adheres to stress, holds to stress, is attached to stress, and envisions of stress that 'This is mine; this is my self; this is what I am,' would he comprehend stress or dwell having totally destroyed stress?"

"How could that be, Master Gotama? No, Master Gotama."

"That being the case, Aggivessana, don't you adhere to stress, hold to stress, aren't you attached to stress, and don't you envision of stress that 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"How could that not be the case, Master Gotama? Yes, Master Gotama."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....035.than.html

[Balerion]

Identifying with that which is impermanent brings suffering.
The body is impermanent, subject to birth, aging, illness and death. Identifying with that which is subject to birth, aging, illness and death, brings suffering.

Why does Ms. Murphy opt for that, how does she justify such identification?

Because there's nothing else to identify with. There is no afterlife, no God, nothing except what we have here on Earth.

[Buddha12]

Do not stand at my grave and weep,
I am not there, I do not sleep
I am a thousand winds that blow,
I am the softly fallen snow
I am the gentle showers of rain,
I am the fields of ripening grain
I am in the morning hush,
I am in the graceful rush
of beautiful birds in circling flight
I am in the star shine of the night
I am in the flowers that bloom,
I am in a quiet room
I am in the birds that sing,
I am in each lovely thing
Do not stand at my grave and cry,
I am not there, I did not die.

[Quantum Quack]

Do not stand at my grave and weep,
I am not there, I do not sleep
I am a thousand winds that blow,
I am the softly fallen snow
I am the gentle showers of rain,
I am the fields of ripening grain
I am in the morning hush,
I am in the graceful rush
of beautiful birds in circling flight
I am in the star shine of the night
I am in the flowers that bloom,
I am in a quiet room
I am in the birds that sing,
I am in each lovely thing
Do not stand at my grave and cry,
I am not there, I did not die.

gosh! that is so beautiful! Thanks....

[wynn]

Because there's nothing else to identify with.

Someone once said that the main reason for suffering is actually a lack of imagination, a lack of creativity: ie. when people don't consider that there may be other ways to think, feel and act than they currently know and engage in.

There is no afterlife, no God, nothing except what we have here on Earth.

Yeah, a claim that a puny human is fully equipped to make!

Even you look to the stars, Balerion.

[Balerion]

Someone once said that the main reason for suffering is actually a lack of imagination, a lack of creativity: ie. when people don't consider that there may be other ways to think, feel and act than they currently know and engage in.

Some "wise man" after the contents of your wallet, no doubt.

Has this "someone" ever explained how such relief is possible? Have they ever demonstrated it?

Yeah, a claim that a puny human is fully equipped to make!

Says the person claiming there is one?

Even you look to the stars, Balerion.

Sure. The stars are actually there--I can see them. If I had the right equipment, I could even measure them--how far away they are, what their chemical composition is, etc..

The mistake is believing that their presence means that there must be some God at the end of it all. The majesty of the sky is more poignant and beautiful than any dogma. I could think of nothing less creative than assuming that all of this beauty must have come from something so ugly as a celestial overlord.

[wynn]

The mistake is believing that their presence means that there must be some God at the end of it all. The majesty of the sky is more poignant and beautiful than any dogma. I could think of nothing less creative than assuming that all of this beauty must have come from something so ugly as a celestial overlord.

And again, you show your lack of creativity (and education) by limiting yourself to mainstream Christianity ...

[Balerion]

And again, you show your lack of creativity (and education) by limiting yourself to mainstream Christianity ...

I lack education, now? Interesting. What is that thing hanging on my wall, then?

You're the one who said the universe must be created by a singular being, so I just figured we're all using the word as a catch-all for that being. And how am I limiting myself? Do you really think I'm not including polytheism in this, or deism? Did you think I just forgot about them?

And again, you show your lack of intellect by mistakenly assuming that "God" is a concept exclusive to mainstream Christianity. I know this might come as a surprise to you, but the not-so-mainstream Christians worship him, too, and so do the kooky fringe folks. Are you ready to have your mind blown? So do the Jews and Muslims. So you'd be wrong even if I were talking about Yahweh, which I clearly wasn't, as I said "a God."

Now please answer the question you ducked from my last post. Here it is again in case you forgot or forgot how to scroll up:

Has this "someone" ever explained how such relief is possible? Have they ever demonstrated it?

[SciWriter]

Dogma is carved in stone; the end. Its followers cannot exult in mystery, since all is solved, by fiat; however, scientists embrace mystery, exulting in it as what can be explored and then understood, ever building and continuing on, not being 'all done'.

[SciWriter]

What happens after death is that you are dead, as well as people walking by your casket whispering that you owed them money.

[absolutely]

death is a killer, as it clearly set the image of bringing smthg living to die

that is why according to me this word exist only to protect killers in their wills of nonexistence pretenses, their regular ways through pervert hides

die as a word point the end of an i before another

in the illusion that since the i is dead there is noone else that could stand for it nor relate the true facts of previous facts before death

so no and never, death is not begining of anything when death is the absolute fact of end, and what is true is only itself fact, so death is true end

different things always exist while bringing new things to existence, death facts is the reason of criminals life that became the only existing ones, through absolute powers over everything existence

of course there must b what is beyond existence bc always there before what become existing for smthg, so cant b touched by death since before death reasons
as there are now only killers determinations called eternal one life out of evil existence, those gods everyone is supposed to worship for any sense of getting smthg in dreams of bein or havin

those gods enjoy what i say so b creative and talk like me when u love them

i dont but im too smart so i keep having to say more then what they have to force me to say to kill me

[C C]

Identifying with that which is impermanent brings suffering.

Death as complete extinction of perceptions, thoughts, and bodily sensations eliminates suffering. Including whatever innate needs and acquired addictions make such extinction seem intolerable, which compel one to stay alive or crave being alive to begin with: "I want to accomplish the rest of my goals, continue pursuing my interests"; "I want to live long enough to see my grandchildren"; "I'm curious, I don't want to miss what happens tomorrow, etc." So what's really the difference between a bodiless, conception-free homogeneous, sublime "peace" and the absence / oblivion that death brings? If lack of suffering is lack of self being around to be ascribed such, if lack of self is lack of a body running a particular "me" program. The nonpracticing extinctivist-atheist as much gets his/her freedom from stress after "kicking the bucket" as the mystic spending untold hours retreating inwardly in a quest to eventually attain whatever brand of nirvana.

The body is impermanent, subject to birth, aging, illness and death. Identifying with that which is subject to birth, aging, illness and death, brings suffering.

But what would a disembodied existence be, anyway? Even in dreams consciousness is equipped with a body, whether it's floating off on a so-called astral projection adventure or staying more reasonably confined to mundane pursuits. If there's more to "non-suffering" than absence or uniform emptiness, or a different version of non-suffering is available, then it would seem to have to involve the pattern of one's memories being retained, the dreaded "self" being resurrected, which also entails a vehicle to run or appear to be running that program.

Why does Ms. Murphy opt for that, how does she justify such identification?

Obviously Murphy believes that her "open to interpretation" Christian God is either storing or recovering the form / configuration of her brain's memories so that they can be activated again someday in a new, non-biological body that is impervious to decay, in a better world. But in the meantime, after death, that pattern or "form" of her intellect and personality is static (like a mere circuit diagram of an electronic device) until its implementation in a body.

The placeholder for her God might be filled by anything from Frank Tipler's wild version of the Omega Point; to a philanthropic archailect in the remote future descended engineering-wise from Christians, that has figured-out how to retrieve detailed information of people from the past; to the overlord of a Matrix-type virtual reality. IOW, it's back to the original unconcern about how the metaphysical blank is filled-in, as there would be many competing possibilities. A similar surplus of abstract schemes arises even in theoretical physics (minus God passions), to the point of once positivist Stephen Hawking rattling-on now about the permanent perspectivism of the lot of them overlapping according to usefulness, his "multiple-model realism" or whatever.

[The Marquis]

Atheist and Theist alike, C_C, they'd rather listen to Buddha12. There is the Key.

[C C]

Atheist and Theist alike, C_C, they'd rather listen to Buddha12. There is the Key.

"Don't fret about your parents being killed in that car accident, Timmie. There is no distinction between them and everything else. The rain is them, your pet hamster is them, and Jerry Sandusky is them. Jerry will take care of you if that Moon up in the sky doesn't. In fact, your parents are also you. So you can be the guardian of yourself."

"Counselor, that sounds cr..."

"Okay, okay. We're actually one great big awareness. That's what we really are. It's kind of like there being different things and people during a dream, then you wake-up and discover everything was just the dreamer or the dream process."

"But I'll still be gone when I die. My parents are gone. I mean, it's like an actor no longer playing a role."

"No, no, the actor is who you really are. You're just a role, like you said."

"But the actor doesn't share my interests, doesn't have my personality, isn't even exclusively human, doesn't..."

"Who cares? Whatever it is, is who you really are."

"But mighty peculiar grief counselor, I don't want to be it! I want to be Timmie. If I become it then I no longer am me, I'm gone."

"No you're not. You're the birds and the trees and the clouds and the...."

"I don't want to be the stupid birds and trees and clouds, and other people. I want to be Timmie."

"Look, kid, you're going to change as you grow up, anyway. You're going to become someone else over time."

"But it will be me gradually making the decisions to alter myself. You're talking about suddenly becoming something else, something utterly alien and unimaginable, the experience of being everything at the same time..."

"It's better than nothing, isn't it? It's the ultimate experience!"

"How do you know there is such a thing? You're telling me that rock over there is experiencing something?"

"No, no. It's just part of some overarching feeling of being everything...."

"How do you know this is the case? Briefly dead people who are revived also report anything from the afterlife they expected as a believer of such to that nothing at all you mentioned. What kind of reliable evidence do you have from these subjective reports for drawing a warranted conclusion that what you're saying is the lone possibility?"

"Uh.... dbwutta, dbwutta, dbwutta, that's all folks!"

[wynn]

Death as complete extinction of perceptions, thoughts, and bodily sensations eliminates suffering.

So then a living person cannot experience a complete cessation of suffering.
Which means that we are doomed to suffer as long as we live.
Which is tied in with the belief that this Universe is such that it is impossible to be truly happy in it.


I think this is a rather grim view of things, and before settling for it, I would consider it prudent to make sure that there really is nothing higher to live for.

But what would a disembodied existence be, anyway?

Not disembodied, but disidentified with things that are inconstant.

Obviously Murphy believes that her "open to interpretation" Christian God is either storing or recovering the form / configuration of her brain's memories so that they can be activated again someday in a new, non-biological body that is impervious to decay, in a better world. But in the meantime, after death, that pattern or "form" of her intellect and personality is static (like a mere circuit diagram of an electronic device) until its implementation in a body.

This is where the usual Christian conception of selfhood so radically differs from, say, a Hindu one.

In some schools of Hinduism, the analysis is generally such: Concerning living entities such as ourselves, there is the body, the mind, intelligence, false ego, and soul. The body, the mind, intelligence, and the false ego are not the self; but they are what we usually identify with and consider "me" or "mine." The actual self is the soul.

In Christianity, in general, however, the whole conglomerate of the body, the mind, intelligence, false ego and the soul is considered to be the self. This is how Christians (and those following in their steps, even if they are not Christians) run into problems that Hindus don't.

"Don't fret about your parents being killed in that car accident, Timmie. There is no distinction between them and everything else. The rain is them, your pet hamster is them, and Jerry Sandusky is them. Jerry will take care of you if that Moon up in the sky doesn't. In fact, your parents are also you. So you can be the guardian of yourself."

"Counselor, that sounds cr..."

"Okay, okay. We're actually one great big awareness. That's what we really are. It's kind of like there being different things and people during a dream, then you wake-up and discover everything was just the dreamer or the dream process."
/.../

Unfortunately, indeed, this is what some "therapy" sessions are like.

There is even a term for it: New Age bullying (the article is worth reading).

"How do you know this is the case? Briefly dead people who are revived also report anything from the afterlife they expected as a believer of such to that nothing at all you mentioned. What kind of reliable evidence do you have from these subjective reports for drawing a warranted conclusion that what you're saying is the lone possibility?"

From the above article:


Why New Age Bullies Do It

New Age Bullies often act from a sincere desire to be helpful. It may also be a defense. Think of a friend who has just suffered a terrible loss or someone who’s been diagnosed with a serious illness to whom you want to say something comforting. Or, someone who seems locked in a destructive pattern and you want to say something to get him to think differently or take charge of his life. The problem is, you can’t know how your words will be received. If they don’t share your beliefs, your advice won’t help. They may feel that you are blaming them or are indifferent to their feelings.

“In blaming or shaming a victim,” Gen Lingpur says of the Buddhist tradition, “you are assuming that the person knew the karma they were creating in a previous life and that they have that knowledge in the present. We don’t know. We can’t know ahead of time what the results of an action will be, nor can we remember what action created the result. It’s sometimes a problem in the Buddhist community when someone says of another’s suffering: ‘It’s just their karma.’ That statement lacks compassion.”

Psychologically, there’s another reason people blame victims. Viki Sharp, a victim advocate for 26 years, explains it this way: “People tend to blame victims because it makes them feel less vulnerable and more in control. A woman leaves her window open one night and a man comes through it and rapes her. The thinking is: ‘She was raped because of something she did — she left her window open and, since I don’t do that, I’m safe.’”

As a practice, I don’t give unsolicited advice because I can’t know for certain what another’s beliefs or vulnerabilities are. Of course, I will offer advice in the context of a therapy session or among friends whose beliefs and experiences are familiar to me.

Gen Lingpur agrees. In her role as a spiritual teacher in a Buddhist community, she finds it appropriate to introduce concepts like karma while leading her students to a deeper understanding of the spiritual belief that there are no accidents, no victims. But it’s also a question of intention, context, and the nature of the relationship. Spiritual teachings can be easily vulgarized and misapplied.

IOW, it's back to the original unconcern about how the metaphysical blank is filled-in, as there would be many competing possibilities.

It's hardly an unconcern, given the fiery responses that accompany it.

If I am reading you correctly, your concern seems to be that while a person can hear or read about fancy philosophies, this doesn't automatically make the person accept them as true, and that given the multitude of views that are on offer, a person can easily become apathetic or pessimistic.
Basically, there are metaphysical solutions that are proposed, but it is not clear how one can avail oneself of them without first undergoing a lobotomy.

Is this in roundabout what you mean? Can you say more?

[Balerion]

If by "true happiness" you mean "the total absence of stress or suffering," then no, it isn't possible. But who says true happiness requires such a thing? What you're talking about is pure bliss, not happiness. You can be truly happy in this world, and plenty of people are. In fact, those tough moments make the good times even sweeter.